Gratteri threatens Il Foglio with retaliation

There is a thin but decisive line that separates criticism of the press from attempts to intimidate those who report the news. And it is precisely on that line that the latest episode involving Naples prosecutor Nicola Gratteri and the newspaper Il Foglio has unfolded.

It all began with what seemed like a marginal controversy: a television comment about the singer Sal Da Vinci, fresh winner of the Sanremo Festival, and his supposed stance in the justice referendum. During a broadcast on La7, Gratteri had claimed that the artist, author of the song “Per sempre sì,” would have voted “no” in the referendum. A statement later denied by the singer himself.

At that point Il Foglio simply did what a newspaper should do: verify and ask for explanations. Contacted by the newsroom, the magistrate explained that it had been a remark made jokingly in the studio, a playful exchange with the host. But the conversation soon took a more serious turn.

According to editor Claudio Cerasa, Gratteri reacted with words that sound at the very least unusual for someone holding an institutional role: “If you want to speculate, go ahead. After the referendum we’ll settle accounts with you at Il Foglio.” And when asked for clarification, he reportedly added that “we’ll cast a net.”

Anyone familiar with the language of the justice system knows that metaphors like these are not harmless. They evoke investigative tools, large-scale operations, and checks. Words which, when spoken by a magistrate toward a newspaper, cannot be lightly dismissed as simple irony.

This is where the matter stops being a dispute between a newspaper and a prosecutor and becomes something broader: a question of press freedom.

Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to inform and to be informed. There are no exceptions based on the prestige of the people involved or the sensitivity of the topics discussed. When a newspaper asks questions, verifies a statement, or reports a public episode, it is not “speculating”: it is performing its role in a democracy.

For this reason Il Foglio has announced that it will request intervention from the National Federation of the Italian Press and the Order of Journalists, raising a simple but crucial question: does the protection of press freedom always apply, or only when it does not bother someone?

The point is not to turn a verbal incident into an ideological clash. The point is to recall a basic principle: public power must accept scrutiny from the press. Always.

Because a mature democracy is not measured by the strength of its institutions, but by the freedom with which newspapers can report on them.

Klevis Gjoka